Real Issues

[Junior Miller 1502]

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Good thread.

And GREAT post by Bates.

Anyone with any experience with complex systems -- and lets be clear, a society made up of hundreds of millions of people, and administered by several layers of local, regional, state, and national government is a complex system -- knows that solutions to problems are often complex as well.  Solving problem X often requires multiple disciplines, has cascade effects in dozens of different areas, etc.

Solving complicated problems, which often have multiple elements of causation, is hard.  Even the example of "hunger" discussed above -- look at how that has involved discussions of mental health care, adequate employment opportunities, food, waste, and health policies, etc.  Teams of wonks, practical boots-on-the-ground leaders, and dedicated servants, solves problems.  I've seen it work.  It's hard.  It takes lots of thinking, creativity, and 4-D chess-level problem-solving.

But if we're focused on "government bad!" or "every man for himself, I got mine!" or "private enterprise bad!", depending on where you sit, we'll never get anywhere.  Seriously, we don't pass Go, we don't collect $200.  We need to believe in the commonwealth -- that is, the common good.  We need to realize that ALL of our institutions can and should play a role in solving our problems: government, private businesses, down to the family unit.  And all of those pieces need to fit together in some way that makes sense.

I imagine that you can see why I have little hope that we'll do so anytime soon.

Unfortunately in order to even take the first step in that direction all incentive for politicians to monetarily enrich themselves through political office, and by turn enrich the corporate masters that pay them at the expense of positive public policy, needs to be removed. We just had a tax law passed and signed that did nothing but pump billions of our tax dollars and billions in deficit spending into the hands of the top 1% for absolutely no reason at all except greed. No stimulus was needed to rebound an ailing economy or bear market. Just plain greed, and the politicians who created and ratified it in turn enriched themselves through contributions from these top corporate people. 

Higher taxes will do nothing until crap like that and the millions of other examples of federal waste are addressed and incentive to perform them removed completely. Unfortunately, the very people who benefit from the waste and corruption are the people who are tasked to create and change the laws so this fatal flaw in the system will never be corrected. 

Even when the politicians TRY to do something for the greater good of the citizens of this country (like the ACA) all that happens is voters put in a regime change that will undercut it and force it's failure instead of actually tweaking it and making it better. At this point the politics game in America is so corrupt, so built on the idea of personal enrichment and use of fearmongering and lies, that the only conceivable outcome is continuation on the same path until financial ruin occurs. If we're lucky this country previously achieved such massive heights economically that this process will take enough years that most all of us here in the 35+ age range will be dead before the collapse and reaping what we sowed begins. If we're lucky. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

3 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

Unfortunately in order to even take the first step in that direction all incentive for politicians to monetarily enrich themselves through political office, and by turn enrich the corporate masters that pay them at the expense of positive public policy, needs to be removed. We just had a tax law passed and signed that did nothing but pump billions of our tax dollars and billions in deficit spending into the hands of the top 1% for absolutely no reason at all except greed. No stimulus was needed to rebound an ailing economy or bear market. Just plain greed, and the politicians who created and ratified it in turn enriched themselves through contributions from these top corporate people. 

Higher taxes will do nothing until crap like that and the millions of other examples of federal waste are addressed and incentive to perform them removed completely. Unfortunately, the very people who benefit from the waste and corruption are the people who are tasked to create and change the laws so this fatal flaw in the system will never be corrected. 

Even when the politicians TRY to do something for the greater good of the citizens of this country (like the ACA) all that happens is voters put in a regime change that will undercut it and force it's failure instead of actually tweaking it and making it better. At this point the politics game in America is so corrupt, so built on the idea of personal enrichment and use of fearmongering and lies, that the only conceivable outcome is continuation on the same path until financial ruin occurs. If we're lucky this country previously achieved such massive heights economically that this process will take enough years that most all of us here in the 35+ age range will be dead before the collapse and reaping what we sowed begins. If we're lucky. 

Well....at least you get it.

But still, I'm a stubborn bastard.  And I believe in continuing to try.  Then again, I've climbed up on my roof and tried to patch shingles during a hurricane, so maybe I'm taking the stubborn thing to extremes.

[relapse98 634]

11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Step 1: draft the Law that allows for such food donations.
Step 2: add a provision that makes the donor immune to a negligence claim.

We could even call it the Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.

[Brisketexan 104465]

Just now, relapse98 said:

We could even call it the Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.

Well, emersome good idears you got there!

And yeah, that's the great thing about legislation.  If you have a genuinely good idea, there's probably already a piece of legislation out there from some jurisdiction that you can just copy and paste.

[pepper brooks 579]

7 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

Unfortunately in order to even take the first step in that direction all incentive for politicians to monetarily enrich themselves through political office, and by turn enrich the corporate masters that pay them at the expense of positive public policy, needs to be removed. We just had a tax law passed and signed that did nothing but pump billions of our tax dollars and billions in deficit spending into the hands of the top 1% for absolutely no reason at all except greed. No stimulus was needed to rebound an ailing economy or bear market. Just plain greed, and the politicians who created and ratified it in turn enriched themselves through contributions from these top corporate people. 

Higher taxes will do nothing until crap like that and the millions of other examples of federal waste are addressed and incentive to perform them removed completely. Unfortunately, the very people who benefit from the waste and corruption are the people who are tasked to create and change the laws so this fatal flaw in the system will never be corrected. 

Even when the politicians TRY to do something for the greater good of the citizens of this country (like the ACA) all that happens is voters put in a regime change that will undercut it and force it's failure instead of actually tweaking it and making it better. At this point the politics game in America is so corrupt, so built on the idea of personal enrichment and use of fearmongering and lies, that the only conceivable outcome is continuation on the same path until financial ruin occurs. If we're lucky this country previously achieved such massive heights economically that this process will take enough years that most all of us here in the 35+ age range will be dead before the collapse and reaping what we sowed begins. If we're lucky. 

well there is the matter of it being their money, and it is more efficiently and effectively put to use in the economy without it running through the financial disaster known as Washington.  Those are good enough reasons.  Revenues are up yet the deficit continues on.  There is no tax rate that will ever provide a revenue stream that can meet Washington's spending.  

 

That said, I have long advocated and still am a huge proponent of some real restrictions being put on those who "serve":

1. The minimum age to run needs to be pushed to 55-60.  This eliminates career politicians.  Make them go earn a living out in the real world, gain valuable experience and wisdom, and then get elected as a way to "give back" and "serve" after being successful at something.  

2. Raising the age to 55-60 ensures some level of "term limits" which are badly needed

3. They get paid travel expenses, stipend, and lodging allowance.  That's it.  Get people wanting to serve the people, not those enriching themselves from their position.

4. Everyone gets the same campaign funds.  

 

This would solve so so so many problems.  

 

 

[Bat Guano 359]

15 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If someone is REALLY concerned about the birth rate in poorer countries, you know what a SMART person would do? He’d look at the #1 factor that leads to lower birth rates. Japan, Europe, the US, all have low birth rates. What do they have in common? Developed and prosperous economies.

Want to make sure the world isn’t overrun with 10 million kids from the Republic of Poor? Then push for a global economic model that turns it into the Republic of Middle Class.

We did that last century in Europe, for example, and what did it get us? Peace. Prosperity in Europe. A prosperous trading partner that enriched the US, too.

Gosh, it’s amazing. When we employ mutually beneficial policies....we mutually benefit.

See the post above. I’m a globalist. I say it loud and proud. Because I see the writing on the wall, and see the path to a prosperous future. I expect that my kids might end up living in the UK, France, Germany, Canada, the US, etc. working and moving relatively freely among them. And maybe add some other countries to that. If the opportunities are in Lagos, then maybe they go there.

The world has been becoming more globalist since 1492, for better or worse. But plenty of it has been “for better,” and if we purposefully work for it to be that way, we can build that side of the ledger.

That kid being born in the Republic of Poor isn’t a leech on the planet. He’s the future grandfather of the boy who’s gonna marry your granddaughter. And that will be a day to celebrate.

Brisket's nailing it in this thread. There is one historically tried and true way to reduce birth rates, and that is to raise living standards. Western Europe, Japan, a few other places are textbook examples. Parts of Europe are worried about having enough working age people, and are bringing in immigrants to make up for negative population growth. Rich peoples' problems.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Bat Guano

[jimmyjazz 45513]

5 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

well there is the matter of it being their money, and it is more efficiently and effectively put to use in the economy without it running through the financial disaster known as Washington.  Those are good enough reasons.  Revenues are up yet the deficit continues on.  There is no tax rate that will ever provide a revenue stream that can meet Washington's spending.  

Wait, what?  Are you saying that a balanced budget is impossible?

[pepper brooks 579]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Wait, what?  Are you saying that a balanced budget is impossible?

yes.  100%  

[bad_teammate 13125]

4 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

1. The minimum age to run needs to be pushed to 55-60.  This eliminates career politicians.  Make them go earn a living out in the real world, gain valuable experience and wisdom, and then get elected as a way to "give back" and "serve" after being successful at something. 

This is Carolina Reaper level hot take.

We need to be ruled by the actively dying. As their brains turn into sludge and their spines turn into violin bows, we need them controlling our lives. That strong, intelligent 45-year-old who is raising a good family and has served in the military or spent his life teaching inner-city kids... he has nothing to offer. That woman with bright kids going off to college, who has spent decades volunteering for the betterment of society... why would we want her to even have the chance to lead?

[jimmyjazz 45513]

10 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

yes.  100%  

So has something changed in your mind that makes what was once attainable no longer attainable?

[G650 13990]

19 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

well there is the matter of it being their money, and it is more efficiently and effectively put to use in the economy without it running through the financial disaster known as Washington. 

 

 

 

This is factually untrue. Some government spending has a higher ROI than a lot of the zombie money sitting in the super rich bank  accounts right now. Infrastructure and R&D specifically.

 

12 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

yes.  100%  

We just had one under Clinton and W?

 

Remember, I say this as some one who got substantially more than a six figure pay out from this tax cut. We really don't need it, it's a financial catastrophe for this country.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

The tax break was designed to fail.  It was sold as a job creation law but let’s look at that logic.

1. pass tax break
2. companies pay less in taxes
3. companies have more money to invest
4. ______________
5. more people have jobs

a real tax break/job creation would look like this

1. Pass tax break law to incentive new jobs
2. companies create new jobs
3. companies are given tax breaks based on new jobs created.
4. companies have more money to invest

Im cool giving an employer a 100% tax break if they hire enough new employees.  Instead we did the reverse hoping it would lead to new jobs.  It did in some cases.  Other cases investors just became wealthier.

[kopp0e 1135]

Teachers underfunded + students in classrooms far overcrowded = 

 

[Anastasis 23375]

On 10/11/2018 at 10:31 AM, G650 said:

This is factually untrue. Some government spending has a higher ROI than a lot of the zombie money sitting in the super rich bank  accounts right now. Infrastructure and R&D specifically.

I’d like to see some attempt at trying to determine level of waste and inefficiency by spending type. But I don’t need to see those numbers to recognize that the examples you give amount to what, single digit percentage points of federal expenditures? 

[Pam Cummings 9553]

How about we start teaching kids in middle school how money works and how to manage it? I couldn't tell you how many times i've seen young people sign up for loads of student loan debt that they didn't need. Students who could afford housing on their own taking the extra student loan money for housing because fuck it, free money. Except it's not.

[Anastasis 23375]

I agree. Personal finances should be a required course. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

10 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

How about we start teaching kids in middle school how money works and how to manage it? I couldn't tell you how many times i've seen young people sign up for loads of student loan debt that they didn't need. Students who could afford housing on their own taking the extra student loan money for housing because fuck it, free money. Except it's not.

So your answer to keeping kids from senselessly blowing their money on education is actually educating them? 

It’s a sound plan.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[G650 13990]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I’d like to see some attempt at trying to determine level of waste and inefficiency by spending type. But I don’t need to see those numbers to recognize that the examples you give amount to what, single digit percentage points of federal expenditures? 

 

It's a pretty well documented data set if you care to look. I honestly don't have time to do it at the moment. Generally though, the vast majority of spending is for services like SS and Medicare. The other big one is the military, which is generally the least efficient. The thing that sticks out in the data sets, and this is a more recent phenomena, is that stuff that is government work that then gets outsourced ends up costing twice as much. Think military contractors, package delivery, accounting etc...

[Texas Jeff 1932]

On 10/11/2018 at 10:02 AM, relapse98 said:

We could even call it the Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.

In addition, the City of Austin now requires food businesses to divert organics and mentions donating food as a preferred alternative.

Restaurants saying that the city or state prevents them from donating food may be misinformed.

[Anastasis 23375]

19 minutes ago, G650 said:

Generally though, the vast majority of spending is for services like SS and Medicare. The other big one is the military, which is generally the least efficient.

Yes. That's kind of the point. These are the major spending areas. These are also the areas most susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse. In your response to peppers' argument about bloat and insatiable government spending, you point to components with favorable ROI but that amount to rounding errors in terms of total government spending.  

[G650 13990]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Yes. That's kind of the point. These are the major spending areas. These are also the areas most susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse. In your response to peppers' argument about bloat and insatiable government spending, you point to components with favorable ROI but that amount to rounding errors in terms of total government spending.  

Well, firstly, they aren't rounding errors, they are very substantial budget segments, which were integral to the astounding growth of the U.S. in the 20th century. Second, you aren't getting rid of SS and Medicare, they are the raison d'etre of governments existence. Their point is to provide service, not turn profit. Thirdly, the government is actually much more efficient than the private sector at spending when you are talking many large scale operations, mostly due to monopoly like conditions because of barriers to entry, like the Postal Service vis a vis FedEx and UPS.

If you want to talk about reducing military spending I'm all ears.

[Anastasis 23375]

Fuck this text editor.  Just lost my response. Let's try again.

30 minutes ago, G650 said:

Well, firstly, they aren't rounding errors, they are very substantial budget segments, which were integral to the astounding growth of the U.S. in the 20th century.

We spend less than 2% of federal budget on non-defense R&D. The last time we made substantial R&D investments was in the 1960s with NASA, which should probably have some portion reclassified as defense spending. We are investing in infrastructure at historically low rates. I don't disagree with the premise that certain government investments can have real and meaningful impact.  And I would agree that when we can identify those areas, we should fund them. What I am pointing out is that those components that you highlight are among the smallest components of federal spending, and really don't serve as effective counterpoints against arguments related to government inefficiency and insatiable appetite for spending.  To calibrate here, if we were to aggressively address fraud, waste, and abuse in just Medicare, for example, we could triple our non-defense R&D spending without any need to generate additional revenue. And I am leaving a few billion on the table to cover the additional administrative costs. 

34 minutes ago, G650 said:

If you want to talk about reducing military spending I'm all ears.

Hell yes.  Double digit cuts phased in. Real cuts. Not DC spending voodoo. 

[G650 13990]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

  To calibrate here, if we were to aggressively address fraud, waste, and abuse in just Medicare, for example, we could triple our non-defense R&D spending without any need to generate additional revenue.

imgur

[Anastasis 23375]

I am happy to consider increasing individual revenues once I see a good faith effort to reel in spending and military expenditures in particular.  If you want to siphon off money from the military to the NIH in the mean time, I am all for it. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Anastasis

[Horn21 168]

On 10/10/2018 at 10:47 PM, Brisketexan said:

Step 1: draft the Law that allows for such food donations.
Step 2: add a provision that makes the donor immune to a negligence claim.

We have a crapload of laws limiting liability on the books. Wouldn’t even have to create new language. Next question.

Keep Austin Fed is doing a great job getting the surplus leftovers from commercial kitchens and retailers to those in need:

https://keepaustinfed.org/donatefood/

In addition to the Good Samaritan federal law, Texas also has a Good Faith Donor Act, which removes liability concerns as long as the donations are made in good faith:

https://keepaustinfed.org/food-liability-acts

There are certain rules such as it must be food prepared within the last 4 days by a regulated food service business (no individual donations) and it can't be already plated food or open buffet food, but this is a fantastic service that a lot of local Austin food providers have teamed up with in helping those without a source of reliable food.